Update 2/18: These findings are part of the Cascadia Scorecard 2009, now available online.
Buying fuel is always a drag. But in 2008, spending on fuel imports became a huge drag on the Northwest’s economy.
The chart to the right tells the story: Based on preliminary data, it seems that the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho spent nearly $30 billion in 2008 to import fossil fuels from other parts of the world.
That’s an increase of more than one-third over 2007—which itself was the highest on record up to that point.
To put this number in somewhat more human terms, it works out to just under $2,500 for every man, woman, and child in the region—which easily tops per-capita spending at the height of the fuel crisis in the early 1980s.
The state-by-state bill, for those who care: $16.6 billion for Washington, $9.4 billion for Oregon, and $3.6 billion for Idaho.
Remember, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho produce almost no fossil fuels of their own. The largest single source in the region—a coal mine in Centralia, Washington—was shuttered in late 2006. Oregon still produces a tiny trickle of natural gas. But that’s it. Everything else we use—all the gas we use in our homes and businesses, all the coal at our power plants, all the oil in our cars and trucks—we buy from somewhere else.
As a result, just about every dollar that we spend on fossil fuels means one less dollar to provide for the economic needs of local families and residents. (Unless, of course, you’re lucky enough to be a major shareholder in an energy company. For them, 2008 was a banner year!)
If current price trends continue, the Northwest will see a much smaller fuel bill this coming year. But that’s cold comfort: prices that spike and then crater make it harder for businesses and families to plan their energy investments. In the long run we’d be better off if fossil fuel prices were kept higher and stabler—and if more of the money we spent on energy could be kept locally, rather than skipping town. (See our Cap & Trade primer for a rundown of how a smart climate policy can help do just that.)
Barry
Worse yet, the oil majors didn’t use that economy-busting profit to create future energy supplies. Instead it went to prop up their short-term stock price.2008 PROFITS UPExxon = 58% profit increase to new record of $15b in one quarterChevron = 50% profit increaseShell = 22% profit increaseApache = 94% profit increaseOIL PRODUCTION CONTINUES TO FALLExxon = down 8% moreShell = down 7% more (including oil sands)Chevron = down 5.7% (8th quarter of decline in a row)Apache = down 9%MOST PROFIT SENT TO SHAREHOLDERSFor example, Exxon has spent $100b in last 4 years alone in buying back their own stock. In latest quarter, Exxon profits went 60% to shareholders and only 40% to capital projects…with dollars for share buyback alone far exceeding dollars spent on all capital projects. Compare Obama’s pledge of $15b for clean energy to Exxon’s $100b for share buy back. Our fossil fuel dollars are destroying our current economic lives and yet not going to our energy future. If we want an affordable, stable and safe energy future we all have to stop buying fossil fuels asap, and instead put our money into green power. That’s what our family has been doing for years now—replacing fossil fuels as fast as we can wherever we can in our lives: — propane out, green electricity in– subaru out, prius in– dryer out, clothesline in– flying out, bus in– driving alone out, e-bike inIt might cost more now…but we will all save piles of money in the long run. Best of all: having hope for a stable economy and a stable climate!
Tim
It would be helpful to know the source of the data used in this post, and if possible, to post the data for others to see.
Davian
While there is much to recommend about Sightline Institute’s promotion of environmental awareness, there is the not-so-small matter of professional ethics to ponder here.This article, is not unlike your doctor describing your smoking habit in terms of economic impacts resulting from the price of a carton of cigarettes. Journalists and research directors alike, have a duty to represent all pertinent facts as it relates to the story on ALL economic costs. The fact is, Cap and Trade is an industry proposed “solution” exposed as highly unlikely to make timely course corrections around greenhouse gas emissions. Such articles actually reinforce widely circulated, deliberately propagated false premises of environmental solutions that do a tragic disservice to society and the planet.When research directors posing as journalists cross the line into advocacy for a demonstrably false solution such as “Cap and Trade”, it is identical to your doctor endorsing “low tar” cigarettes for your health. Reader and patient alike, beware, professional ethics have been breached in this article and the more gullible of us will pay dearly, but not as much as the price of the misery of our children and grandchildren.Cap and trade, like Clean Coal, is a dangerous myth propagated by industry advocates who receive vast sums of money to push “business as usual”, “too little too late”, “solutions”.
Matt the Engineer
What an odd comment. Would you like to list the studies to back up your assertions? What exactly is your issue with Cap and Trade? Have you read the many articles on this site about how Cap and Trade can be implemented well or poorly? Who are these industry advocates being paid by? Are you suggesting that Sightline is made up of industry advocates?
Barry
It constantly amazes me that climate concerned folks fight over policy options…especially cap vs carbon tax.Why not both?That’s what the conservative premier has done here in BC.The reality is that carbon tax is quick and easy to implement. It took only a few months here in BC. Everyone from Dr. James Hansen of NASA to Exxon CEO Tillerson advocate a carbon tax.Sightline has pointed out in many articles how a Cap & Trade can be more fair. But so far Cap & Trade schemes have been slow to implement and complex to understand and administer. In BC we still don’t have a functional cap going.I think the best solution is Tax-Until-Cap. Carbon tax is quick and we would get economy-wide carbon price implemented right away. We need this. It would be replaced by a Cap & Trade scheme once the cap actually covered that carbon source and was implemented. The carbon tax would serve as a spur to get cap happening quicker.Plus climate policy advocates would be working together instead of fighting each other.When you build a house you use different tools and materials for the foundation than you do for the roof.Tax-until-Cap.
Davian
In response to “What an odd comment.”(by Matt the Engineer)There is nothing odd about the international controversy on cap and trade, and emissions trading. It has also been referred to as “Carbon Colonialism” (Google “Climate Fraud and Carbon Colonialism- The New Trade in Greenhouse Gases” by Heidi Bachram)I’m quite familiar with the many faces of free market environmentalism represented on this site. They advocate measures identical to the heavy corporate lobbying for emissions trading that followed the Kyoto Protocol.Those who would promote the creation of financial instruments through the commodification of rights to pollute makes (and maintains the status of) millionaires and creates complex bureaucracy but fall critically short of what is needed at what little remains of this eleventh hour of the planet.Please don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Dr. James Hansen has to say about it.:” “Goals ” for percentage CO2 emission reductions and “cap & trade & dividend ” are a threat to the planet, weak tea, not commensurate with the task of getting CO2 back to 350 ppm and less.”Now, Carbon Tax is a very different story and needs to be aggressively implemented ASAP.
Gary Durning
Just a quick note on the declining oil production figures posted by Barry. Oil is indeed becoming harder to find and produce, but the nationalization of oil resources accross the globe is a major roadblock in major oil companies in expanding production. It’s not a big “conspiracy”. As for carbon tax, apparently it seems to be working alright in Canada. I think its acceptable as long as its implemented as fairly as a tax can, and that all of the tax proceeds go towards clean energy investments. Cap and trade is an idea that I think should be tested in markets accross the country as pilot projects. That way it will be more apparent if its a feasible fair way to help limit emissions. I find it amusing about the thought of proffesional ethics being breached in this article.